Cannabis

[Owen-]

Should Cannibis be legalised?

I dont think it should - but have heard a few leftisits saying it should - what are your views? Why do they believe that it should?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Yes, it should be.

The 'war on drugs' is counterproductive, and is actually a policy of increasing the powers of domestic law enforcement into militarizing working class communities. The fact remains that you can not regulate personal activity - it creates more problems than resolving them.

[Ander]

Besides damage to your lungs and brain (and even this is disputed), marijuana is a pretty safe substance. As far as I know, there have been no recorded deaths from marijuana use.

Even if you look down on the recreational side of it, the cannabis plant itself has many other uses. First of all, marijuana has many medicinal purposes and can be used to treat illnesses such as glaucoma, cancer, AIDS, and more. It also serves as a general pain reliever.

Secondly there is the case of hemp, which is a kind of cannabis plant that is legally used around the world for several reasons. This particular form of cannabis has both nutritional and medicinal values and has also been found to serve as a renewable energy source. Hemp also contains strong fibers that can be used to produce items such as rope, paper, parachutes, etc.

I read once that one of the presidents who served in the Second World War (I believe), was saved from having his plane shot down by a hemp parachute. This not be true, however, so don't quote me on it.

[Owen-]

all drugs shoud be legalised then?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Owen-@December 16, 2007 12:00 am
all drugs shoud be legalised then?
This question will be left up to the individual worker's soviets under the new worker's state. There are far too many opinions on either side of this debate for this question to be answered in any other way besides a democratic one, though I think the most rational decision would be legalization.

[Owen-]

Recent studies have shown that cannabis can lead to depression. If this is true - and given that fact that Capitalist ideology already makes a good proportion of the working class lethargic, with respect to revolutionary practise- do we really want a substance, that does the capitalist's job for them, and prevents the working class from rising against the system?

[Robespierre2.0]

Cannabis causing depression? What have you been huffing?
Of course, the effects are different for every person, but its effects on me have never been anything but positive. Though I haven't smoked in weeks (I got in trouble, lol), I think I'd be a much more depressed person today if I had never started smoking.
The only real negative side effect I've noticed is an occasional cloudiness of thought the day after smoking a lot.

I'd say alcohol, religion and fast food have done more to pacify the working class than pot ever has. It's a generalization, but I think pot tends to make people more left-wing.

[Elliott]

Originally posted by Owen-@December 16, 2007 12:59 am
do we really want a substance, that does the capitalist's job for them
Assuming you're referring to the "capitalist's job" as being oppression, how can you agree with completely forbidding people from making the free choice to use an illicit substance?

[Dros]

Yes. I don't think this issue comes down to whether or not it is healthy. It is clearly healthier than tobacco or alcohol. This is a personal choice issue (unlike heroin, crack, etc. which should be illegal).

[Jaden]

In America, most especially, I think, decriminalizing marijuana will do a lot of good. After all, as people have said, there are few negative effects of its use either medicinally or recreationally. Also, many good points about hemp have been made. There is a great legal debate between a family in one of the Sioux tribes and the government about growing hemp for the production of paper, rope, etc. They've been purged by the DEA several times already even when they had permission to grow the substance. They hemp they grow doesn't even have enough THC to get high from! I can't remember the family's name, perhaps someone else knows what I'm talking about? Anyway, allowing the growth of hemp (which can be grown in various different climates and even on rough, hard soil such as the soil on the family's land on the reservation in South Dakota) in areas like the reservation would boost the job industry for such places (which are pretty void of any good opportunities). This would contribute to a decrease in poverty in such places (and increase the working class!)

I would hope in a post-revolutionary world there would be much more utilization of hemp. It is both a great resource for things previously mentioned as well as something to benefit the environment (I read somewhere that it produces more oxygen than a regular tree. I'll try to find where I read this.)

[which doctor]

all drugs shoud be legalised then?
I believe they should be.


Recent studies have shown that cannabis can lead to depression. If this is true - and given that fact that Capitalist ideology already makes a good proportion of the working class lethargic, with respect to revolutionary practise- do we really want a substance, that does the capitalist's job for them, and prevents the working class from rising against the system?
Where are these studies? For many people marijuana helps people with depression. I suppose if you are a chronic marijuana user and are having problems in your life, you may be depressed. But marijuana use does not directly cause depression.


This is a personal choice issue (unlike heroin, crack, etc. which should be illegal).
Do you mind explaining why ones use of heroin and crack should not be a personal choice?

[Owen-]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2498493.stm

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfor...ntalhealth.aspx (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=cannab...ts=&safe=images (http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=cannabis+causes+depression&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images)

All drugs being legalised - Especially in a Capitalist system, will certainly detract from the revolution, will it not? - people being enslaved to the drug - not being able to see the appalling conditions they are living in - their life captured by it.

I believe cannabis to be similar to this, only to a less extreme extent.


I suppose if you are a chronic marijuana user and are having problems in your life, you may be depressed.

You may well be right - however the drug is addictave and force you to become a chronic marijuana user... thereby runing your life.

No?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Owen-@December 16, 2007 12:59 am
Recent studies have shown that cannabis can lead to depression.
Alcohol is a depressant to. As are many foods that people regularly consume, a lack of hydration and excersise, or rest, all these can cause depression. They shouldn't be illegal.

There are no reported fatalities linked to cannabis. Pretty much all of the health problems are actually associated with the tobbaco often smoked with it. Two people (in recorded history) have died from chocking on vomit whilst stoned on Cannabis, but it was later found that they were also completely drunk at the time.

I don't want my taxes spent on stopping people taking this drug! Legalise it for fucks sake.


All drugs being legalised - Especially in a Capitalist system, will certainly detract from the revolution, will it not? - people being enslaved to the drug - not being able to see the appalling conditions they are living in - their life captured by it.

Well, people fuck themselves up with drugs already, and, in my honest opinion, people probably shouldn't take most of them. Ever. Heroid, Opium, Cocaine, are all terrible, community destroying drugs, but they are just a symptom of the times in which we live. Banning them is like taking painkillers for cancer, it fixes one of the symptoms, artificially, for a little while, but it doesnt fix the problem that caused it.

The question is one of liberty.

[Colonello Buendia]

my mates smoke hash occasionaly and aren't addicted to it
they're addicted to the tobacco that is needed ot aid the burning of the spliff, plus cannabis is healthier than Tobacco, apart from the stuff that you get on the streets, criminals try to boost the weight by adding all kinds of rubbish. if you legalise hash it automatically becomes safer

[Exovedate]

I think it is just ridiculous that tobacco and alcohol are legal but marijuana isn't. I don't have the stats but I am sure thousands of people die every year from alcohol and tobacco use is quickly becoming one of the leading causes of death in the world. For fuck's sakes, tobacco is the only product in the world, where if it is used correctly, is going to kill you. A person would have to smoke a joint (marijuana cigarette) the size of a telephone pole in order to die from marijuana overconsumption. The U.S. government spends millions on the war on drugs, and it is failing horribly (not that it is supposed to be working). I don't know about in the US or UK but in Canada the smartest thing the government could do is to legalize marijuana and then tax the sale of it. In my opinion it is much safer than alcohol which causes depression and violence, compared to marijuana which causes euphoria and peacefulness (after a good ol' spliff the last thing I want to do is fight someone). The only problems I see with marijuana are its addictive qualities (which I have never experienced) and the fact that it clouds people's decision making, effects that are also experienced by users of tobacco and alcohol.

[Colonello Buendia]

very good point, In the UK Cannabis is Illegal, the SSP demands legalization of cannabis and if offered no other party the SSP is getting my vote for that :D

[Vanguard1917]

Should Cannibis be legalised?

Of course, along with all drugs. But this is unlikely to happen if the left is unprepared to fight for it. Indeed, these days, those on the left are some of the main advocates of prohibition, calling for greater restrictions on things like tobacco and 'junk food'.


The question is one of liberty.

Indeed it is.

Grown men and women don't need the nanny wing of the bourgeois state telling them what they can and cannot put into their own bodies. Simple as that.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Banning a substance or action that has no effects on the health or happiness of anyone but the person taking the substance or action is state paternalism, and I don't agree that paternalism is a legitimate justification for law (it is "legitimate" in the sense that it is accepted and applied in many jurisdictions today, but I mean "legitimate" to be correct). The state has no right to ensure that people live a sufficiently healthy life; indeed, it is one of the primary roles of the state to ensure that no external factors negatively influence the health or happiness of the individual, but the individual should be able to choose how healthily they want to live life. The state cannot force an individual to do a certain amount of excercise a day or refrain from eating fatty foods, I don't see how cannabis is any different.

I have more to write, but I'm not feeling great so maybe later.

[Insano]

unlike alchool and tobacco, cannabis does not cause physical dependence..it also causes much less harm to yer body. another funny thing is that ye can't have an overdose of cannabis, unles ye smoke tons (i mean TONS) of it in one day..some amount wich is humanly possible - search the net for these maths

I think these reasons are more than enough to legalise cannabis in countries where alchool and tobacco are legal - do ye imagine these being illegal in US or some european country?


..and about the "bad effects on revolutionary will"..well mate, they don't seem to apply on me!

Insanø

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:46 am
unlike alchool and tobacco, cannabis does not cause physical dependence..it also causes much less harm to yer body. another funny thing is that ye can't have an overdose of cannabis, unles ye smoke tons (i mean TONS) of it in one day..some amount wich is humanly possible - search the net for these maths
Well I'll disagree on being addicted to it. I know a lot of people who smoke everyday and they CAN'T go a day without it. They act similar to other drug addicts. Not everyone is the same though and not everyone is going to get addicted.

I say all drugs should be legal. I'm saying this as a person who's NEVER done a drug, and someone who'll NEVER DO a drug.

Everyone should be educated (with facts) about the effects of the drugs and it should be up to them if they want to take them or not. I know the effect of all the drugs and I chose not to do them, but I would not want to stop someone else from doing it if THEY wanted to, and if they KNEW what the effects are.

And of addiction, I think the drugs themselves are not the root cause of the addiction. I notice, with my friends who are addicted to weed, that they don't have too good of a social life, not a great life with the females, and many of them are stuck in shit jobs and their lives suck. So of course they're going to get addicted to a substance like Weed because for a small amount of time, they'll feel good. Notice how almost all those facts about my friends lives are caused by capitalism.

If people in general are happy and don't have shit lives, then they won't get addicted to any drug (should they chose to do it).

[which doctor]

Originally posted by bootleg42+December 18, 2007 10:16 pm--> (bootleg42 @ December 18, 2007 10:16 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 02:46 am
unlike alchool and tobacco, cannabis does not cause physical dependence..it also causes much less harm to yer body. another funny thing is that ye can't have an overdose of cannabis, unles ye smoke tons (i mean TONS) of it in one day..some amount wich is humanly possible - search the net for these maths
Well I'll disagree on being addicted to it. I know a lot of people who smoke everyday and they CAN'T go a day without it. They act similar to other drug addicts. Not everyone is the same though and not everyone is going to get addicted. [/b]
A marijuana "addiction" is very different than usual addictions to drugs such as stimulants or narcotics. One is addicted to weed in much the same way one can be addicted to porn or say, posting on a message board.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

If people in general are happy and don't have shit lives, then they won't get addicted to any drug (should they chose to do it).
That's not true. Drugs like heroin and nicotine are chemically addictive make your body chemically dependant on them to function normally. This happens regardless of mood.

[Insano]

Originally posted by FoB+December 19, 2007 03:18 am--> (FoB @ December 19, 2007 03:18 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:16 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 02:46 am
unlike alchool and tobacco, cannabis does not cause physical dependence..it also causes much less harm to yer body. another funny thing is that ye can't have an overdose of cannabis, unles ye smoke tons (i mean TONS) of it in one day..some amount wich is humanly possible - search the net for these maths
Well I'll disagree on being addicted to it. I know a lot of people who smoke everyday and they CAN'T go a day without it. They act similar to other drug addicts. Not everyone is the same though and not everyone is going to get addicted.
A marijuana "addiction" is very different than usual addictions to drugs such as stimulants or narcotics. One is addicted to weed in much the same way one can be addicted to porn or say, posting on a message board. [/b]
that's the point..that's why I said physical dependence..

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:24 am


If people in general are happy and don't have shit lives, then they won't get addicted to any drug (should they chose to do it).
That's not true. Drugs like heroin and nicotine are chemically addictive make your body chemically dependant on them to function normally. This happens regardless of mood.
I forgot about Heroin but nicotine......I'm not going to doubt the scientific findings behind that but what about the people who only smoke cigarettes during parties and stuff like that and the rest of the week never touch a cigarette???? I mean I've gone out parting with people who never smoke cigarettes but they suddenly smoke in clubs and parties and they don't get addicted, they don't go looking for cigarettes any other time.

[jaffe]

I am from the Netherlands. It is associated a lot with legalised drugs. Still it needs to get legalised. The police decided in the 60's that hard-drugs like heroin were far more dangerous than weed en hasjees. They wanted to concentrate their anti-drugs policy on hard-drugs so they tolerated softdugs. So it's still ilegal in the Netherlands to posses or sell drugs in 'coffee'- or smart shops. Only a small amount is tolerated for own use and coffeeshops can't have more than 500 grams weed in their shop, which I think is stupid. People involved with hard drugs werent get so much punishment as in other country's. That's why lot of drugs are produced in the netherlands (no. 1 export =XTC).

It's in my experience (ad many tourists who visit Amsterdam :lol: ) very easy to get drugs. But still the Netherlands has one of the lowest ammount of drugs-users in the world. Country's were they have a heavy anti-drugs policy like the US sometimes have 2 or 3 times the percentage users we've got. Obviously when you're young you experiment with some drugs but it's isn't that exciting when it's legal to do. The wrong is assumption that you make is that when drugs are legal or very easy to get that everybody becomes a (addicted) user, in my experience it's the opposite because it loses one of his main attractions.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:34 pm
Indeed, these days, those on the left are some of the main advocates of prohibition, calling for greater restrictions on things like tobacco and 'junk food'.

Demanding that the capitalist food industry exercises responsibility in the products it churns out is not prohibition.

Please crawl out of the arse of big business, comrade :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+December 19, 2007 09:48 am--> (Citizen Zero @ December 19, 2007 09:48 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 06:34 pm
Indeed, these days, those on the left are some of the main advocates of prohibition, calling for greater restrictions on things like tobacco and 'junk food'.

Demanding that the capitalist food industry exercises responsibility in the products it churns out is not prohibition.[/b]
The real target of anti-fast food snobs is not 'the capitalist food industry' (as if Waitrose and organic food aren't capitalist...), but the people who eat 'fast food' - the fat, ignorant masses who apparently need to be saved from eating themselves to death.

Asking big business to behave 'responsibly' has always been empty liberal nonsense. Food companies are in it to make money, first and foremost. When McDonald's puts more lettuce behind its counters, you know it's just a marketing strategy and an empty gesture to appease the Morgan Spurlocks of this world.

What the anti-'fast food' crusaders seem to dismiss is the fact that the people who eat at McDonald's and KFC aren't dumb zombies who can't make a pasta from scratch and who are led astray by the adverts and big logos of the evil corporayshuns that want to poison them. The masses are far more rational than that - far more rational than the enlightened food snobs and hysterical ethical shoppers who degrade them. These campainers have much more in common with the anti-smoking and anti-drinking lobby than anything else. It's a moralistic, puritan campaign to save the masses from their supposedly disasterous lifestyles.

I'll take the side of the 'McMasses' anytime.

[which doctor]

that's the point..that's why I said physical dependence..
I was talking to bootleg, not you.


I forgot about Heroin but nicotine......I'm not going to doubt the scientific findings behind that but what about the people who only smoke cigarettes during parties and stuff like that and the rest of the week never touch a cigarette???? I mean I've gone out parting with people who never smoke cigarettes but they suddenly smoke in clubs and parties and they don't get addicted, they don't go looking for cigarettes any other time.
Of course you won't get addicted after one cigarette, you won't get addicted after your first pop of heroin either. People just don't get addicted after only one hit. It takes a while, often a matter of weeks of sustained, heavy use. Myself and many of my friends have used many very addictive substances, but we haven't become addicted to them because we exercise self-restraint and common sense. There is such a thing as a casual heroin user.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:55 pm
I'll take the side of the 'McMasses' anytime.
Yes, almost like you're in the pay of McDonalds.

Is there a capitalist multinational that you don't support?

[jaffe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:15 pm
There is such a thing as a casual heroin user.
Very very rare. Most users are addicts. Besides that I think heroin is the most dangerous drug.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+December 20, 2007 09:56 am--> (Citizen Zero @ December 20, 2007 09:56 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 05:55 pm
I'll take the side of the 'McMasses' anytime.
Yes, almost like you're in the pay of McDonalds.

Is there a capitalist multinational that you don't support? [/b]
I don't support multinationals. I support working class resistance. You support middle class pricks lecturing working class people about what they should and shouldn't eat.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+December 20, 2007 05:37 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ December 20, 2007 05:37 pm)
Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 20, 2007 09:56 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 05:55 pm
I'll take the side of the 'McMasses' anytime.
Yes, almost like you're in the pay of McDonalds.

Is there a capitalist multinational that you don't support?
I don't support multinationals. I support working class resistance. You support middle class pricks lecturing working class people about what they should and shouldn't eat.[/b]
Rubbish. In every single issue around environment, the food industry, third world under-development, you speak up for the likes of Exxon and McDonalds. How long do you think you can keep up the charade that you are in any way anti-capitalist and not just some capitalist stooge who thinks it's clever to just say the opposite of what the left believes?

Even over the issue of no-platform for racists and fascists you end up supporting the BNP :blink: Clickest here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73613)

[Vanguard1917]

Rubbish. In every single issue around environment, the food industry, third world under-development, you speak up for the likes of Exxon and McDonalds.

I've never supported McDonald's or Exxon. I have opposed environmentalist and other reactionary middle class attacks against fast-food and oil. There is a major difference.


Even over the issue of no-platform for racists and fascists you end up supporting the BNP Clickest here

I didn't support the BNP. I supported freedom of expression in bourgeois politics - as did Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky...

Your mediocrity and simplemindedness is, frankly, immense.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by jaffe+December 20, 2007 05:27 am--> (jaffe @ December 20, 2007 05:27 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 06:15 pm
There is such a thing as a casual heroin user.
Very very rare. Most users are addicts. Besides that I think heroin is the most dangerous drug. [/b]
Sources?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:13 pm

Rubbish. In every single issue around environment, the food industry, third world under-development, you speak up for the likes of Exxon and McDonalds.

I've never supported McDonald's or Exxon. I have opposed environmentalist and other reactionary middle class attacks against fast-food and oil. There is a major difference.




If you support 'fast food' you support McDonalds and all the other parasites who make a profit from poisoning our kids. The major difference is in your fevered imagination.


I didn't support the BNP. I supported freedom of expression in bourgeois politics - as did Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky...

I'd like you to quote where any of the above mentioned championed the free speech of reactionary class enemies, or called for debate with them, while simultaneously attacking the people who organise against such filth.


Your mediocrity and simplemindedness is, frankly, immense.

:lol: Who sounds like a patronising middle class prick now?

[bezdomni]

I think vanguard1917 is right. I am sick of middle class so-called leftists criticizing me for getting coffee or fries at McDonald's.

An anarchist once told me "there is not a single leftist in europe that eats at McDonald's"...First of all, I'd say that bullshit; second of all, if that is true then it is very very sad for the left in Europe.

Demanding that McDonald's "take responsibility" for what they put in their food and encouraging (middle class people) to boycott fast food is and always has been a tactic of bourgeois liberalism.

So, citizen zero, you can go an preach your so-called radicalism to the middle class white people at Whole Foods all you'd like; just don't suffer from the illusion that you're actually a communist if you think that we need to be putting our efforts into demanding the fast food industry to be "responsible".

In fact, you're the one who's standing up for fast food since you are perpetuating the myth that there can be any sort of responsibility under capitalism and that we can and should put our efforts into changing it.

Liberalism hurts the class struggle.


------------------------

And yes, of course cannabis and all drugs should be legalized. I don't know how anybody could call themselves a radical leftist of any measure and support the prohibition of drugs.

This thread is mind-bogglingly liberal.

[rocker935]

I think all drugs should be legal even though i personally don't smoke, drink, or do any narcotics. You shouldn't be asking yourself if its something that you would personally do. If the government serves any practical purpose at all it is that it protects you from foreign invasion. It is NOT the government's job to protect you from your own choices. And for the record, weed is one of the most harmless drugs out there, if I were to ban any drug it would be cigarettes.

[Vanguard1917]

If you support 'fast food' you support McDonalds and all the other parasites who make a profit from poisoning our kids. The major difference is in your fevered imagination.

McDonald's do not 'posion our kids' - they sell burgers and chips. Your hysterically moralistic and irrational reaction is a typically middle class one. But the wider masses know better - which is why they continue to eat at at 'fast-food' restaurants.

I want 'fast-food' restaurants to be under workers' control. It's not in my capacity to take the moral highground and lecture people about what they eat and feed their children. That's for bourgeois puritans.


I'd like you to quote where any of the above mentioned championed the free speech of reactionary class enemies, or called for debate with them, while simultaneously attacking the people who organise against such filth.

I have already alerted you to Trotsky's position. In Freedom of the Press and the Working Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm), Trotsky does not mince words. He say: 'any workers “leader” who arms the bourgeois state with special means to control public opinion in general, and the press in particular, is a traitor'.

Trotsky was refering specifically to the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM), and its 'Marxist' leader Lombardo Toledano, which was calling for censorship and bans against reactionaries - just like Unite Against Fascism, the SWP, and sections of the trade union 'movement' are doing today in Britain.

Trotsky called such people traitors, arguing that 'any restriction to democracy in bourgeois society, is eventually directed against the proletariat'. 'Those who have not yet realised this', Trotsky writes, 'should leave the ranks of the working class.' Why? Because 'it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class'.

Incidentally, how does Trotsky think that the reactionary ideas be confronted in bourgeois society? 'The most efficient way to fight the bourgeois press is for the workers’ press to develop.' We need to 'win [workers] over from the reactionary press' through the development of our own press. Not through the means of censorship: 'only those blind or simpleminded could think that the workers and peasants could be freed from reactionary ideas by the banning of reactionary press'.

Standing up for freedom of expression in bourgeois society can mean having to defend the free speech rights of scum. Marxists fully understand this. It is in bourgeois interests to try to police public opinion in our streets, workplaces, schools and universities. Marxists have always opposed this.



Your mediocrity and simplemindedness is, frankly, immense.
:lol: Who sounds like a patronising middle class prick now?

You're debating like a third-rate liberal.

[Hit The North]

Vanguard1917

It is a disgrace that you cite Trotsky in defense of your support for the fascist's right to organise against our people (which your defense of their right to free speech is the first step in the acknowledgment of).

Comrades who are reading this post and think that Vanguard1917 is in anyway representing the attitudes of Trotsky towards Nazism should click here (http://www.marxists.org/subject/fascism/index.htm).


I have already alerted you to Trotsky's position. In Freedom of the Press and the Working Class, Trotsky does not mince words. He say: 'any workers “leader” who arms the bourgeois state with special means to control public opinion in general, and the press in particular, is a traitor'. [My emphasis]

And still locked up inside your bourgeois conception of politics you are unable to grasp what I and many other comrades have told you, plain and simple: No-platform for racists and fascists is a call for the self-organisation of the working class and not a call for the bourgeois state to enact censorship laws. Every activist on the ground who is willing to physically oppose the fascists, as opposed to debating with them as your faction is willing to do, understands this.

Now you may parade any number of reformists like Livingstone, and you may slander the SWP by falsely arguing that it supports state censorship, but this will not stop you getting your head ripped off if you ever try to cross a no-platform picket so that you can share a platform with the BNP.


Standing up for freedom of expression in bourgeois society can mean having to defend the free speech rights of scum.

Why, are you a bourgeois lawyer or something? Personally, I prefer shouting the fascists down and running them out of town. But then, I'm an anti-fascist.


You're debating like a third-rate liberal.

You're debating like someone who isn't seriously engaged in class struggle.

[Vanguard1917]

It is a disgrace that you cite Trotsky in defense of your support for the fascist's right to organise against our people (which your defense of their right to free speech is the first step in the acknowledgment of).

:lol:

Would you like to address Trotsky's arguments at all, since you in reality radically disagree with them?


And still locked up inside your bourgeois conception of politics you are unable to grasp what I and many other comrades have told you, plain and simple: No-platform for racists and fascists is a call for the self-organisation of the working class and not a call for the bourgeois state to enact censorship laws. Every activist on the ground who is willing to physically oppose the fascists, as opposed to debating with them as your faction is willing to do, understands this.

I don't belong to a 'faction' and i'm not particularly interested in debating with members of the BNP. I see the BNP as an irrelevance, so i would rather not waste my time taking apart their arguments. I would rather confront the arguments of more prominent reactionaries - like those in the mainstream political parties and media who are the ones responsible for racism and xenophobia in British society.

But the people who invited Griffin and Irving were interested in debating them. That's up to them. My point is this: the UAF liberals who called for a ban against Griffin and Irving at Oxford are reactionaries because they want bourgeois institutions (like universities) to police public debate.

These people are our opponents. The 'leftists' among them are, as Trotsky put it, traitors.


you may slander the SWP by falsely arguing that it supports state censorship

The SWP does support state censorship. They support and help organise UAF. I'm merely stating facts.


Why, are you a bourgeois lawyer or something? Personally, I prefer shouting the fascists down and running them out of town. But then, I'm an anti-fascist.

You're an 'anti-fascist' in the sense that Ken Livingstone is an anti-fascist. You think that the reactionary ideas can be defeated through bourgeois censorhip because you fear working class people hearing all sides of the argument and deciding for themselves what they think is best. Indeed you think that working class people aren't even capable of deciding their own diets - and, more disturbingly, that they 'poison' their kids. If working class people can't decide for themselves what to eat, they can hardly decide which political ideas are in their best interests.

In other words, you hold the working class in contempt. This places you securely in the tradition of middle class liberalism - and a million miles away from Marxism.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:20 pm
McDonald's do not 'posion our kids' - they sell burgers and chips.
Yes. It seems that some people consider hyperboles to be much sexier than they really are...


the wider masses know better - which is why they continue to eat at at 'fast-food' restaurants.

The masses eat at "fast food" restaurants because they are overworked, and cannot take the time to eat better meal.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:22 am
It is a disgrace that you cite Trotsky in defense of your support for the fascist's right to organise against our people (which your defense of their right to free speech is the first step in the acknowledgment of).

:lol:

Would you like to address Trotsky's arguments at all, since you in reality radically disagree with them?

I don't radically disagree with Trotsky's argument, but I disagree when petite bourgeois fools like yourself employ the argument as if it is an abstract rule which must guide our tactics.

But once again, I'm forced to repeat myself: organising no-platform is not the same as calling for state censorship. Now, I'm sure I can shout that repeatedly in your ear and you would still not comprehend. This is partly because:
I don't belong to a 'faction'

Yes, you don't belong to anything. Nevertheless the company you keep - the Institute for Ideas, Spiked!, etc. - and who's arguments you peddle here on RevLeft with boring regularity - I'm surprised that you are even concerned with what working class people think. The position of this ragtail bunch of ex-RCP neocons, argue that the meeja is now the true vanguard which must be infiltrated. You encapsulate the position yourself when you succinctly state:
I would rather confront the arguments of more prominent reactionaries - like those in the mainstream political parties and media who are the ones responsible for racism and xenophobia in British society.
Yes, a nice clean confrontation of ideas, which does not necessitate any dirty political activity like organising against the BNP on the ground. How nice for you.

Of course, this fits in nicely with the whole Spiked! IOI, or LM Network agenda and methodology: simply inverting the traditional positions of the left. Therefore, the "reactionaries" are those who oppose all restrictions on business; who want to limit the impact of capitalism on the environment; who demand good healthy food; or who organise in their unions and communities to isolate the BNP.

In effect this means you support Big Business, MacDonalds and the BNP.

I wonder why a right-wing ideologue like yourself bothers to post on RevLeft?


The SWP does support state censorship.

You're a liar and a scab.

[Cheung Mo]

lol...When I play poker tournaments, it seems like me and 3/4 of the other final table regulars are stoners.

For some reason there's an extremely high correlation between cannabis use and poker skills in my corner of Ontario. :-P

[Marsella]

The masses eat at "fast food" restaurants because they are overworked, and cannot take the time to eat better meal.

Or it could just be that they can't be stuffed cooking and simply like the taste of fast food?

Seems a bit of a hyperbole to suggest that their infatuation with fast food is due to capitalist conditions...

***

Personally, I really don't give a shit whether someone eats fast food or takes drugs.

But we should also consider what consequences that has on others.

For example, I don't think many of us here would support buying Blood Diamonds (sorry, I saw the movie a couple of weeks ago and it was really good :lol: )

Now, coke certainly is sold by reactionary groups.

However, perhaps this adds emphasis to the argument that drugs should be legalized (which I support) so we know where those drugs have come from.

/musings over/

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:57 pm
An anarchist once told me "there is not a single leftist in europe that eats at McDonald's"
Haha that is hilarious.

At an antifa demo I saw an anarchist get food at McDonalds and eating it amongst all the other anarchists, some people looked at him weird but most didn't really give a shit.

[Q]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+December 22, 2007 10:22 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ December 22, 2007 10:22 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 09:57 pm
An anarchist once told me "there is not a single leftist in europe that eats at McDonald's"
Haha that is hilarious.

At an antifa demo I saw an anarchist get food at McDonalds and eating it amongst all the other anarchists, some people looked at him weird but most didn't really give a shit. [/b]
I ate McDonalds food regularly in the past and only stopped eating it because I realised what crap it really is. I prefer Burger King or Subway :lol:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:20 am
Or it could just be that they can't be stuffed cooking
Maybe. And maybe it is impossible for them to actually cook if they have 1 hour of lunchtime, and live 2 hours away by bus?


and simply like the taste of fast food?

Also maybe. What does it mean to "like the taste" of something, if we don't know other tastes to compare it?

I eat in fast food restaurants because,

a) I don't know how to cook myself;
b) I can't afford, at this moment, to pay someone a wage to cook for me;
c) much less I can afford eating at "good" restaurants;
d) It is edible.
e) food isn't that much an important source of pleasure to me. I would rather eat at McDonalds and read Shakespeare, than eat at French restaurants and read Sydney Sheldon.

In that order.

And that is considering that I am on health leave. If I was actually working, knowing how to cook myself wouldn't help a lot, since I would not have the time to cook.


Seems a bit of a hyperbole to suggest that their infatuation with fast food is due to capitalist conditions...

Why?

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 21, 2007 11:43 pm

the wider masses know better - which is why they continue to eat at at 'fast-food' restaurants.

The masses eat at "fast food" restaurants because they are overworked, and cannot take the time to eat better meal.
There is this assumption: that working class people eat more 'junk food' than the middle classes. But whether this assumption is a valid one is far from clear. For example, research published by the Food Standards Agency in the UK earlier this year showed that those on low incomes have pretty much the same diets as middle class families. The research found that the major differences in diet were more related to age rather than class - with younger people, regardless of class, consuming more 'junk food' (high-fat, low-fibre foods, processed foods, etc.) than older people.

These findings suprised the British political and media elite precisely because it was so widely presumed that obesity and eating 'junk food' were working class problems. The middle classes were shocked to find that they feed their families pretty much the same stuff as working class people, and that their kids were as likely to be overweight as working class kids. As this article from spiked (The war on obesity is a war on the poor (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3674/)) astutely observed at the time: 'there is an assumption that behind every flabby child waddling down the road there are parents who are as thick as mince, with barely enough money to send their overweight offspring to the chip shop for their dinner on the way back from fetching mum and dad’s fags.'

We now know that, in Britian at least, this assumption is flawed.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by FoB+December 20, 2007 06:16 pm--> (FoB @ December 20, 2007 06:16 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:27 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 06:15 pm
There is such a thing as a casual heroin user.
Very very rare. Most users are addicts. Besides that I think heroin is the most dangerous drug.
Sources? [/b]
Em, it would be extremely hard to prove or disprove that kind of thing. The best way to judge really is from experience. I have come across a hell of a lot of heroin addicts and no casual heroin users.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't eat fast food very much because I don't really like a lot of fast food, but I certainly don't think eating mcdonalds or not has any difference on your political views. If you think you are more progressive because you don't eat fast food, then you have a very strange idea of revolutionary leftist politics.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:19 pm
I don't eat fast food very much because I don't really like a lot of fast food, but I certainly don't think eating mcdonalds or not has any difference on your political views. If you think you are more progressive because you don't eat fast food, then you have a very strange idea of revolutionary leftist politics.
QFT.

That said, I don't see why Vanguard is so bitterly opposed to people (leftists, environmentalists or other) saying that fast food is worse for you than other food. What's wrong with stating fact?

[Marsella]

Maybe. And maybe it is impossible for them to actually cook if they have 1 hour of lunchtime, and live 2 hours away by bus?

Well, I have 30 minute break, I live about half an hour away from work (I ride or walk there).

And I work approximately 10 hour days.

Yet I can find the time to cook a meal. At most it would take 30 minutes to prepare something healthy and tasty. I cook the night before I begin work so I have something to eat during the day.


What does it mean to "like the taste" of something, if we don't know other tastes to compare it?

I would have thought it irrelevant.


a) I don't know how to cook myself;
b) I can't afford, at this moment, to pay someone a wage to cook for me;
c) much less I can afford eating at "good" restaurants;
d) It is edible.
e) food isn't that much an important source of pleasure to me. I would rather eat at McDonalds and read Shakespeare, than eat at French restaurants and read Sydney Sheldon.

In that order.

a) You should learn to - it is quite easy!
b) You don't need to pay someone to cook for you! It is probably cheaper to cook for yourself than to go to a fast food outlet.

For example, if you want an oriental dish, then it would cost you at most $20 and it would be enough to feed you for a whole week. You would spend that amount eating fast food during one day alone.

c) Non-fast food restaurants are just as competitively priced and the food is much healthier.
d) Low standards!
e) I find cooking and eating to be pleasurable. More so than reading Shakespeare and Sydney Sheldon.


And that is considering that I am on health leave. If I was actually working, knowing how to cook myself wouldn't help a lot, since I would not have the time to cook.

Comrade, it really is not that hard. Why are you on health leave by the way? :mellow:

Clearly you have some free time, otherwise you would not be posting on this board.

You really just can't be stuffed, can you?! :P


Why?

It is a hyperbole to suggest that the working class is forced to eat fast food. It is a choice.

I have worked at a few restaurants, some fast-food, others not.

I really didn't notice the difference in class composition. But Vanguard1917 is correct in stating that more younger people attend fast food restaurants than older people.

But I will add that more mothers and children go to fast food restaurants.

I don't blame them!

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:39 pm
But Vanguard1917 is correct in stating that more younger people attend fast food restaurants than older people.
I beg to differ. I work in a fast-food restaurant (and loathe it), but I see quite a lot of elderly people, often couples or single older people. Many of them come in nearly every day. Many elderly people eat fast food because it is easier and cheaper than cooking a meal for just one or two people. I work at what is considered one of the higher quality chains though and I suppose less elderly might visit places such as McDonalds or Hardees.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by FoB+December 23, 2007 02:31 pm--> (FoB @ December 23, 2007 02:31 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:39 pm
But Vanguard1917 is correct in stating that more younger people attend fast food restaurants than older people.
I beg to differ. I work in a fast-food restaurant (and loathe it), but I see quite a lot of elderly people, often couples or single older people. Many of them come in nearly every day. Many elderly people eat fast food because it is easier and cheaper than cooking a meal for just one or two people. I work at what is considered one of the higher quality chains though and I suppose less elderly might visit places such as McDonalds or Hardees. [/b]
Well the statistics say otherwise I think.

But I think that is true, somewhat.

Younger people (15-28) come in more often than middle aged people (30-50), but quite a few elderly people come in too.

But if you work in a fast food restaurant - surely you have noticed what elderly people mainly order - tea and coffee, right? :lol:

That's certainly been the case for me.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I don't agree with this at all. There are mcdonalds right in front of senior homes in various places, and they get more attention by the elderly than anyone else.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23, 2007 04:39 pm
I don't agree with this at all. There are mcdonalds right in front of senior homes in various places, and they get more attention by the elderly than anyone else.
Wow, what undeniable proof!

Here are some statistics:

[img]http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/images/93-interior.gif' alt='' width='367' height='408' class='attach' /> (http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/images/93-interior.gif)

(Edit: note that this question is asking 'how often do you eat at a restaurant' - there is an even greater deviation when it comes to fast food restaurants, as is explained below.)

[img]http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/images/eating-aboutbox.gif' alt='' width='313' height='324' class='attach' /> (http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/images/eating-aboutbox.gif)

Explaining:


Younger adults (ages 18-49) tend to eat at restaurants and eat fast food more often than do older adults (ages 50 and older). The generational differences are especially strong when it comes to eating fast food. About six-in-ten (59%) adults under age 30 eat a meal every week from a fast food restaurant, compared with about two-in-ten (19%) of those ages 65 and older who do so.

Full report here. (http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/Eating.pdf)

And this:


Age Groups:
* The 16-25s were least likely to be responsible for food shopping and were highly fast food orientated. The 66+ group were least likely to eat out and were most likely to use local shops and buy food only for themselves.

From here. (http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/webpage/consurve_execsum)

I am sure there are other more reliable statistics concerning fast-food eating habits concerning age, but you have to pay to access them or obtain them through a university. Can you agree with statistics?

[dannthraxxx]

I find it absurd that a natural occurring plant is illegal. Especially when cigarettes and alcohol are legal.


Those two kill more people than pot ever could. Not to mention, I dont think marijuana has actually killed anyone at all.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Owen-@December 15, 2007 07:36 pm
Should Cannibis be legalised?
As a daily consumer, I say that (wholeheartedly) marijuana (along with other various drugs) should be legalized everywhere.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Owen-@December 15, 2007 08:00 pm
all drugs shoud be legalised then?
Prohibition causes un-needed problems and never works?

[bezdomni]

It doesn't matter if old people eat fast food or not. The important thing is that boycotting McDonald's or demanding that fast food "take responsibility" for its shit is bourgeois liberalism, not revolutionary leftism.

Nobody is defending McDonalds, we are defending organizing the proletariat and its allies to defeat capital...rather than asking capital to "play fair".

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 23, 2007 10:49 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 23, 2007 10:49 pm)
Owen-@December 15, 2007 08:00 pm
all drugs shoud be legalised then?
Prohibition causes un-needed problems and never works? [/b]
First of all, no problems are "needed". Legalizing hard drugs like cocaine and heroin would cause "un-needed" problems as well.

Secondly, saying prohibition never works is just stupid. You are saying the law can never effectively prohibit an act or substance? Well shit, why don't we just legalize murder then.

Difficulty in enforcing a law is not an argument against the law.

I am all for the legalization of cannabis but not because it still exists when it's illegal.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:17 pm
First of all, no problems are "needed".

No shit, I meant problems on top of problems.


Legalizing hard drugs like cocaine and heroin would cause "un-needed" problems as well.

People will do heroin or cocaine regardless if the law says the can or not and outlawing [x] substance doesn't decrease the usage of the drugs it only leads to racketeering and people being thrown into prison all for having a bit of powder.

I don’t think heroin, cocaine or other ‘hard’ substances in and of themselves would cause problems and are substances that can be used for recreation and won’t inherently land you shaking in the gutter.


Secondly, saying prohibition never works is just stupid.

The 'Dry Law' in America worked wonders didn't it? Where has prohibition laws ever worked?


You are saying the law can never effectively prohibit an act or substance?

It can't stop people from using various substances no and it has never decreased the usage of any drug that I know of.


Difficulty in enforcing a law is not an argument against the law.

It isn't a matter of difficulty it's the fact that prohibition laws solve nothing.

[Rasmus]

I believe that legalising marijuana is the best thing to do, since it should be a free choice. Preferably as medicine.

I do however favour far more education on the subject of drugs in general. People, while generally aware it isn't healthy, don't know any examples of what it does to you.

In some way though, it'd be logical that drug abuse would be less of a problem in the communist society, since the losers of society that turn to drugs would no longer exist. They'd be part of the Classless Class, and would no longer have the reason to turn to drugs as a painkiller, as they would no longer have to worry about paying the rent, feeding their children and so on.

On the subject of fast food, I have no love for that. It should be banned. Not for the purpose of taking away choices that people make, but because it is the product of several decades of capitalist competition to make the food cheaper to make, and addictive to the one eating it (Watch Super Size Me, it's a great movie about the subject). The quality of the food that is sold is seen as a small matter, compared to the profit of the chain. This is the main problem. The pursuit of profit.

Soo...

Just my immediate thoughts. :unsure:

[bobroberts]

There are no valid reasons for cannabis to be illegal, and there is certainly no reason to support violence against it's users (I consider imprisonment to be an act of violence). The negative health effects are few and minor, and the positive effects overwhelming. The anti-marijuana movement got it's start from racist tyrants running propaganda stories about it for basically three purposes:

1. To crack down on the lower classes, specifically immigrants and black people in the 30's (an obvious, and left-wing radicals in the 70's.
2. To expand state power and erode the rights of working people. (which has given rise to the monstrously inhuman and corrupt prison industrial complex)
3. To subvert one industry (industrial hemp) in favor of another that couldn't compete (cotton, timber).

Of course, this is from a US perspective, but from what I remember the US basically spearheaded the war on drugs throughout the world. This is a drug that helps the working classes, and the capitalist tyrants know it.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:44 pm
It doesn't matter if old people eat fast food or not. The important thing is that boycotting McDonald's or demanding that fast food "take responsibility" for its shit is bourgeois liberalism, not revolutionary leftism.


Of course those kind of consumer campaigns are liberal in nature and no one is claiming they have anything to do with revolutionary leftism. Nevertheless, in an argument between consumers and a multinational corporation, we have to be sympathetic to the call for "responsibility".


Nobody is defending McDonalds, we are defending organizing the proletariat and its allies to defeat capital...rather than asking capital to "play fair".
If you don't raise the demand then how can you prove in practice to other workers that capitalism is not on their side?

If we only ever engaged with revolutionary issues then we'd be sat with our thumbs up our arses, waiting for the "great day" - which would probably never come anyway because the Left decided to ignore every issue which fell short of a call to overthrow capitalism.

And don't forget that the Black Panther Movement began with a campaign for a traffic light.

[Vanguard1917]

It doesn't matter if old people eat fast food or not. The important thing is that boycotting McDonald's or demanding that fast food "take responsibility" for its shit is bourgeois liberalism, not revolutionary leftism.

Nobody is defending McDonalds, we are defending organizing the proletariat and its allies to defeat capital...rather than asking capital to "play fair".

Also, we recognise that 'consumerist' campaigns are more than often reactionary in essence, representing the petty, snooty, anti-working class outlook of the organic-munching Western middle class.

[Vanguard1917]

in an argument between consumers and a multinational corporation

Nonsense. In reality, it's precisely those who don't consume at McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, etc. (i.e. a small minority of organic-munching middle class snobs) who are involved in enlightening the rest of us about all those evil, poisonous burgers and chicken wings.

Contrary to what some may think, there is nothing progressive going on here whatsoever. This is a moral campaign against a select few 'corporayshuns' which sections of the middle class finds vulgar and not suited to their refined tastes - largely because the masses consume in them.

[bezdomni]

If you don't raise the demand then how can you prove in practice to other workers that capitalism is not on their side?

lol, it is already proven in practice by the conditions of their life. Look at it this way, black proletarians in the slums don't need you to tell them that McDonald's is bad for them to prove that this system fucks them.

The masses can and do fight for improvements in their day-to-day conditions perfectly fine without communists. Our job isn't to be the defenders of the demands of the masses, but to raise the consciousness of the masses from demanding higher wages or better housing to demanding nothing short of revolution.

We gotta support and strengthen the day-to-day demands and rebellions of the masses...but keep in mind that everything we do is about revolution.


If we only ever engaged with revolutionary issues then we'd be sat with our thumbs up our arses, waiting for the "great day" - which would probably never come anyway because the Left decided to ignore every issue which fell short of a call to overthrow capitalism.

So instead of actually working for revolution we should just go with whatever demands the masses are making?

We need to emphasize to the masses why nothing short of a communist revolution can liberate humanity from class society.

For example, I just got back from New Orleans because the state is trying (and succeeding) to demolish 4,500 low-income housing apartments...which is part of an overall attack on black people in New Orleans, forcing them out of their homes and under bridges or into prisons or other cities - to make small pockets of superexploited black people, rather than high concentrations of black proletarians in urban areas. The state is trying to get rid of a highly concentrated "surplus population" which is very dangerous to them.

Supporters of the RCP were there to fight the power by standing with the masses against the bulldozers and protesting (and getting tazered) in front of city hall. We were also there to get out the paper to the masses out in the projects and apply the mass line...to find out where the people are coming from and to turn the day-to-day demands of the masses into an overall programme for creating a new dynamic in society and ultimately for revolution.

So, that is what we mean by strengthening the day-to-day demands of the masses whilst also raising the consciousness of the masses. This orientation is concentrated in the slogan "Fight the power! Transform the people for revolution!"



And don't forget that the Black Panther Movement began with a campaign for a traffic light.

lol that is a gross oversimplification of the origins of the BPP.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:15 pm
Nonsense. In reality, it's precisely those who don't consume at McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, etc. (i.e. a small minority of organic-munching middle class snobs) who are involved in enlightening the rest of us about all those evil, poisonous burgers and chicken wings.
I don't consume fast food and I'm not a "organic-munching middle class snob." I don't eat fast-food because most of the time it tastes horrible.

[bobroberts]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:15 pm
Contrary to what some may think, there is nothing progressive going on here whatsoever. This is a moral campaign against a select few 'corporayshuns' which sections of the middle class finds vulgar and not suited to their refined tastes - largely because the masses consume in them.
I don't think that's true at all. There are elements of snobbery, of course, but the fast-food industry is a horror show. They peddle low-quality non-nutritious food, infused with sweeteners and fat and other chemical perfumes and additives to make them addictive because otherwise they would taste awful and no one would eat it. Often these products are directly marketed towards children, who can easily become hooked on this shit for life. On top of that, every worker involved in this industry are exploited ruthlessly on pretty much every level. The corporate franchise arrangement also serves to siphon nearly all the profits out of the community and into the pockets of the shareholders. The way this food is created is unnecessarily idiot proof (just look at all the expensive special equipment they use, instead of sticking to the basics and putting slightly more effort into training their workers), and offer workers absolutely no dignity. This leads to malnourishment on top of obesity, and if you are malnourished, it is much more difficult to think clearly. Another problem is that with dissatisfied workers running the place, the incidents of food poisonings will be rampant.

This is mass exploitation of the working classes.

I work for a corporate franchise, and it's ridiculous how these businesses are run. These companies could easily afford to pay their workers a fair wage, or give them a equal share of the profits, and still thrive if they were so inclined. If we had a business model based on socialist principles, democratic control of the workplace, and aggressively took on these corporate giants, we could greatly strengthen the working class. These fast-food places are literally everywhere. I think worker co-operatives of this sort would thrive in the inner cities and anywhere else that has been destroyed and continue to be exploited by capitalism. There is great potential here, we shouldn't overlook it.

[bezdomni]

This is mass exploitation of the working classes.

No, selling labor-time for less than it's worth to the bourgeoisie is the mass exploitation of the working class...not eating shitty food.

[bobroberts]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:08 pm

This is mass exploitation of the working classes.

No, selling labor-time for less than it's worth to the bourgeoisie is the mass exploitation of the working class...not eating shitty food.
That is exactly what's going on, all over the map, at every step of production, when it comes to these businesses.

Getting people addicted to their shitty food, with chemical additives, and keeping them malnourished and exhausted is just icing.

[Great Helmsman]

Drug use should be decriminalized, and addicted users should be provided treatment for their disease. The current drug war is racist government campaign of terror against predominantly minority populations in America. But we shouldn't promote, legitimize, or even legalize the use of drugs.

I imagine it would be much easier to fix drug use under communism or socialism. Treatment could be provided to every addicted person who needed it. And it's not like there will be a large black market for this sort of stuff, after all where's the profit motivation under communism or socialism? And even if prohibition did prove to be difficult to stop, it makes a poor argument in favor of legalization.

The question isn't: could we do it, but should we do it?

The answer is "yes". It should be obvious to comrades what the detrimental effects heroin, cocaine, meth, and alcohol have on people, so I'll argue against the legalization of safer drugs like marijuana or LSD.

There's no reason why a post-revolutionary socialist state should allocate resources to the cultivation/manufacturing of drugs for non-medicinal use. Would it not be far more advantageous to provide the necessary food, shelter, medicine, and amenities for a huge population while cutting down on everyone's workload? There's no way the collective should keep wasting resources on maintaining a constant stream of drug for dopeheads to get high.

And why should they be entitled to get high anyways? The time and effort they put toward satisfying their selfish entertainment could be put to be better use helping their comrades and the whole of humanity.

[bobroberts]

Originally posted by Great [email protected] 26, 2007 12:17 am
And why should they be entitled to get high anyways? The time and effort they put toward satisfying their selfish entertainment could be put to be better use helping their comrades and the whole of humanity.
People need an outlet from the stresses of day to day life. In my experience, cannabis can help greatly with this, and provides surprising medical benefits (for example: it has eliminated migraines which used to plague me, and it doesn't tear up your stomach like the usual drug cocktail of aspirin, Tylenol and caffeine). You wouldn't even need to focus on production, just let it be legal for people to grow for themselves in their gardens or wherever. It's relatively easy to grow, it's one of the earliest crops cultivated by human civilization, and it has a plethora of valid medical uses, and little downside to recreational use.

[CallToArms]

Originally posted by Owen-@December 16, 2007 12:59 am
Recent studies have shown that cannabis can lead to depression. If this is true - and given that fact that Capitalist ideology already makes a good proportion of the working class lethargic, with respect to revolutionary practise- do we really want a substance, that does the capitalist's job for them, and prevents the working class from rising against the system?
If anything Cannabis has opened my eyes wider to the truth and motivated more than ever.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 24, 2007 05:46 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 24, 2007 05:46 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 08:17 pm
Secondly, saying prohibition never works is just stupid.

The 'Dry Law' in America worked wonders didn't it? Where has prohibition laws ever worked? [/b]
Ever considered "prohibition" in Russia, which the Bolsheviks continued after the revolution? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_Russian_Empire_and_Soviet_Union) <_<

I&#39;m OK with legalizing marijuana, but only because of the proven medical benefits for certain cases. Cocaine, heroine, opium, etc. - on the other hand - should be banned as being part of a regressive lumpenproletarian culture.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

One of the reasons I have never been opposed to the "prohibition" in Russia is I am very aware of the current problems and I have witnessed firsthand, the effects of drugs/alcohol on the lumpenproletariat. I have to agree with Jacob Richter; one of the major factors that contributes to the regression which remains noticeable distinctly in regard to the lumpenproletariat is drugs/alcohol.

These are factors that contribute to its regression, i.e. limiting its progression. Yes, there are other factors, but as they are "thrown" from all other class distinction, the formation of the lumpenproletariat occurs. They are "lumped" into a sort of "underclass" which is already limited in its progress, but factors such as drugs/alcohol cause this progression to be limited further. I have noticed throughout my lifetime, in the worst neighborhoods one could walk, the lumpenproletarian culture. It is regressive, and this causes it to futher regress. Lumpenproles end up in it, they stay there. Their children do, too, and their children&#39;s children. That&#39;s why it continues to grow (i.e. regression) as they become involved with drugs/alcohol, means of surviving through various "crimes" i.e. selling drugs to other lumpenproletarians as they many times are unemployed and do not have the means of proper housing without the such.

They have been "thrown out" of all existent classes and "lumped" into an underclass, which continues to grow. I am not against legalizing marijuana, however, I don&#39;t think everything else should be legalized along with it (i.e. cocaine, heroin, etc) as has been said above, because it is a contributing factor to regression of the lumpenproletariat which legalizing it cannot merely solve. If the regressive culture is to ever progress /move forward there can&#39;t be legalization of crack and the such. If it&#39;s legalized they will never progress out of the "underclass" and the problem will continue. If these conditions are to truly be "done away with" the regressive culture needs to be transformed into a progressive element, otherwise class distinction will never really be done away with.

I don&#39;t oppose the legalization of marijuana because it has evident medicinal benefits, and that isn&#39;t related to the regression of the lumpenproletariat.

In regard to the "prohibition", I think of it as a means of progression, to rid society of class distinction through eliminating the regressive conditions. If the lumpenproletariat remains a regressive element, progression towards communist society cannot be at all successful.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25, 2007 10:29 pm
I don&#39;t oppose the legalization of marijuana because it has evident medicinal benefits, and that isn&#39;t related to the regression of the lumpenproletariat.
^^^ The only reason why I linked medical benefits to class regression was because of my utilitarianism on many social matters (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65353). :(

Anyhow, you elucidated upon the class regression part very well. :cool:

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Jacob Richter+December 25, 2007 11:50 pm--> (Jacob Richter &#064; December 25, 2007 11:50 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 25, 2007 10:29 pm
I don&#39;t oppose the legalization of marijuana because it has evident medicinal benefits, and that isn&#39;t related to the regression of the lumpenproletariat.
^^^ The only reason why I linked medical benefits to class regression was because of my utilitarianism on many social matters (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65353). :(

Anyhow, you elucidated upon the class regression part very well. :cool:[/b]
Okay I see now. However, I was commenting on it because it seemed relevant to the topic of this thread.

But I was just remarking on what I have noticed during many years of living near/within the innercity and the conditions/lumpenproletarian culture.

It is very noticeable in Racine and innercity Milwaukee, where I have spent much of my life and taken notice of it.

Glad it shed some light. :D

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:15 pm
I find it absurd that a natural occurring plant is illegal. Especially when cigarettes and alcohol are legal.


Those two kill more people than pot ever could. Not to mention, I dont think marijuana has actually killed anyone at all.
Amen my brotha&#33; I believe marijuana should be legalized for medicimal purposes. In fact, when I worked with HIV/AIDS patients I advocated marijuana use for them. Incrediable enough, the ones who smoked are still alive today, after living nearly 15 years with full blown AIDS. They and Il give credit to weed. It helps with pain (which lowers the immune system) appetite, and mood.

I just find people who insist on using drugs everyday boring, and try to surround myself with people like me, who got away from that lifestyle because of the negative aspects of it. Or even better those who have never used drugs.

The only problem I have with other drugs, is fighting off an addiction is probably the worse pain in the world, especially opiates.

As far as McDonalds, have you ever seen the movie "super size me?" Its where this guy eats nothing but mcdonalds food for a month or so. He really got sick.
Oh and FYI, my Rott refuses to eat hamburger meat from Burger King. Scary huh?

[bobroberts]

Originally posted by CallToArms+December 26, 2007 02:14 am--> (CallToArms @ December 26, 2007 02:14 am)
Owen&#045;@December 16, 2007 12:59 am
Recent studies have shown that cannabis can lead to depression. If this is true - and given that fact that Capitalist ideology already makes a good proportion of the working class lethargic, with respect to revolutionary practise- do we really want a substance, that does the capitalist&#39;s job for them, and prevents the working class from rising against the system?
If anything Cannabis has opened my eyes wider to the truth and motivated more than ever. [/b]
Same here.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by jaffe+December 20, 2007 10:27 am--> (jaffe @ December 20, 2007 10:27 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 06:15 pm
There is such a thing as a casual heroin user.
Very very rare. Most users are addicts. Besides that I think heroin is the most dangerous drug. [/b]
I&#39;d say methamphetamine is alot work, it is as addictive and is far worse for your body. I&#39;m no expert but from what I gather heroin will not to much damage to your body over the long term ignoring things like no eating properly, overdoses, needle sharing and the ptifalls of the addicts life. Whereas meth will fuck with your body and mind quite quickly.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:24 am

That&#39;s not true. Drugs like heroin and nicotine are chemically addictive make your body chemically dependant on them to function normally. This happens regardless of mood.
This is true but addiction does not come in one dose or even many casual doses necessarily it tends to come in the middle of psychologically driven usage which spirals into a physical addiction. The psychological element obviously will be far less potent in a socialist society.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:25 pm


If you don&#39;t raise the demand then how can you prove in practice to other workers that capitalism is not on their side?

lol, it is already proven in practice by the conditions of their life. Look at it this way, black proletarians in the slums don&#39;t need you to tell them that McDonald&#39;s is bad for them to prove that this system fucks them.




And don&#39;t forget that the Black Panther Movement began with a campaign for a traffic light.


The point isn&#39;t McDonalds per se but the link between intervening at the level of consciousness where workers actually are. If the conditions of workers lives "proves in practice" that capitalism fucks them over then why are there not more committed revolutionaries?


The masses can and do fight for improvements in their day-to-day conditions perfectly fine without communists.

Really? Then why aren&#39;t they winning?


Our job isn&#39;t to be the defenders of the demands of the masses, but to raise the consciousness of the masses from demanding higher wages or better housing to demanding nothing short of revolution.

You make it sound like an "either/or". As communists we are the tribune of the masses. We work to raise their demands; defend their gains; and push onwards to the establishment of workers power.


We gotta support and strengthen the day-to-day demands and rebellions of the masses...but keep in mind that everything we do is about revolution.

Of course.


So instead of actually working for revolution we should just go with whatever demands the masses are making?

Of course not. But what is "working for the revolution" if it is not positively intervening in the day-to-day struggle? Not agreeing with every demand, but patiently working to improve and sharpen those demands. The intervention you mention in the action in New Orleans is such an example - and obviously more militant and more inspiring than a poxy consumer demo outside a suburban Burger King&#33; I don&#39;t think we have much separating us on this issue of revolutionary practice.

But is that Vanguard1917s position in this debate? No, it is to reject any criticism of corporate capital, to attempt to discredit it as "a small minority of organic-munching middle class snobs"; and thereby imply some kind of coalition of interests between Big Capital and the working class. It&#39;s an old trick, one practiced by Murdoch&#39;s The Sun and Fox News, and one now being put into practice by Vanguard1917 and the LM Network of intensely intellectual media darlings to which he belongs. In other words, its an old trick of the Right, used to discredit the Left.

But Comrade bobroberts has outlined the lousy employment practices of these companies. The issue of fast food is as much an issue about capitalist labour relations as it is about consumer choice. It&#39;s interesting (but not surprising|) that Vanguard1917 wants us to see it as solely an issue of consumerism and limits on freedom of choice - just as he saw the issue of no-platform for racists and fascists. For him that debate - how we fight the fascists - was reduced to the question of the free exchange of ideas which could then be consumed by a rational, discriminating audience. It truly is a media-inspired hyper-simulation of social reality, echoing the social function of the intelligentsia, which Vanguard1917 puts forth.


lol that is a gross oversimplification of the origins of the BPP.

Yes, it is. But it&#39;s the accumulation of such events which provide the impetus for such movements.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+December 26, 2007 03:00 am--> (Nusocialist @ December 26, 2007 03:00 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:27 am

[email protected] 19, 2007 06:15 pm
There is such a thing as a casual heroin user.
Very very rare. Most users are addicts. Besides that I think heroin is the most dangerous drug.
I&#39;d say methamphetamine is alot work, it is as addictive and is far worse for your body. I&#39;m no expert but from what I gather heroin will not to much damage to your body over the long term ignoring things like no eating properly, overdoses, needle sharing and the ptifalls of the addicts life. Whereas meth will fuck with your body and mind quite quickly. [/b]
I know from experience of meth and it is not pretty. whether it be myself or friends I have known.

the such should not be legal. it by far contributes more negatively to society than does any benefit to legalize meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. marijuana is another matter since I know people who have had life-threatening illness such as AIDS, cancer, what not and it helped them yet they could not let anyone find out about it (even as their use was medicinal). That is the only reason I am not against legalizing marijuana. However, there are obvious negative effects on society in regard to drugs like heroin which are highly addictive and only cause further regression of lumpenproletarian cuture.

[Vanguard1917]

They peddle low-quality non-nutritious food, infused with sweeteners and fat and other chemical perfumes and additives to make them addictive because otherwise they would taste awful and no one would eat it. Often these products are directly marketed towards children, who can easily become hooked on this shit for life.

Oh right. Here&#39;s me thinking that McDonald&#39;s is in the business of selling burgers and fries... Apparently they&#39;re also part of a mass drug-peddling conspiracy - lacing their burgers with super-addictive potions in order to draw in the helpless fast-food fiends - i.e. the masses.

Don&#39;t you realise just how ridiculous this sounds? It&#39;s exactly this kind of snooty, patronising middle class nonsense that we need to be resisting.


No, it is to reject any criticism of corporate capital, to attempt to discredit it as "a small minority of organic-munching middle class snobs"; and thereby imply some kind of coalition of interests between Big Capital and the working class.

Not at all. I think that the interests of capital and those of labour are irreconcilable. When working class people are fighting the corporations through strikes and occupations, i know whose side i&#39;ll be on. Incidentally, this is also the position of spiked writers, which you should at least try to understand before making attempts at a critique (see for example: What’s behind the rise of ‘Tescophobia’? (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/3371/)).

But how many of today&#39;s middle class anti-McDonald&#39;s snobs - who like to pick on the select few corporayshuns which they find vulgar and unsuited to their refined tastes - would be on the side of the working class? It&#39;s highly likely that the answer will be not many. Why? Because their attack on the few corporayshuns that they don&#39;t like (fast-food stores, leading supermarkets like Tesco and Wal-Mart, low-cost airlines like Easyjet) is already based on their disdain for the working class people who consume in them, rather than for capitalism itself. This is very important to understand.

[bobroberts]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:52 pm
Oh right. Here&#39;s me thinking that McDonald&#39;s is in the business of selling burgers and fries... Apparently they&#39;re also part of a mass drug-peddling conspiracy - lacing their burgers with super-addictive potions in order to draw in the helpless fast-food fiends - i.e. the masses.

Don&#39;t you realise just how ridiculous this sounds? It&#39;s exactly this kind of snooty, patronising middle class nonsense that we need to be resisting.


I don&#39;t care how it sounds, it&#39;s the truth. The chemicals are designed to trigger the naturally occurring opiates inside everyones brain, and they are effective. It dulls your palate to anything but that type food. The purpose is not to get people malnourished and sick, it&#39;s to make their food more appealing at the lowest cost possible, but that doesn&#39;t matter since the effect is to get people hooked on shitty food that basically poisons you and effects the way you think.

Diet IS important. It&#39;s more important than people realize. It finally dawned on me how important it is by watching a program on school lunches. The crap they were feeding the kids resembled the shit they peddle at McDonalds, and the kids were hyperactive and couldn&#39;t concentrate. Some of the kids had their bowels so impacted from eating this stuff, that their bowels were overflowing back into their own stomachs&#33; When they switched to a healthy diet, free of soda and fried shitty foods, the kids returned to normal after about a week. It was like night and day. The way the kids initially rejected the healthy, normal food, you would think the chef was trying to rape them. It&#39;s really amazing, and I know grown men who act the same way whose diet consists of fried whatever, and microwave dinners. This is not right, no matter how stupid it sounds to you.

I&#39;m not advocating looking down on people who consume McDonalds or whatever, I&#39;m advocating overthrowing the corporate franchise model which exploits everyone involved, from the workers to consumers to the community as a whole, in favor of one based democratic control of the workplace, quality food, and trained workers. If we figure out a way to compete with a socialist model we could establish a base of support for further socialist activism in the very communities currently being horribly exploited. That starts by exposing how these businesses operate, and how bad they are for the people who frequent them.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by bobroberts+December 26, 2007 08:20 pm--> (bobroberts @ December 26, 2007 08:20 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 06:52 pm
Oh right. Here&#39;s me thinking that McDonald&#39;s is in the business of selling burgers and fries... Apparently they&#39;re also part of a mass drug-peddling conspiracy - lacing their burgers with super-addictive potions in order to draw in the helpless fast-food fiends - i.e. the masses.

Don&#39;t you realise just how ridiculous this sounds? It&#39;s exactly this kind of snooty, patronising middle class nonsense that we need to be resisting.


I don&#39;t care how it sounds, it&#39;s the truth. The chemicals are designed to trigger the naturally occurring opiates inside everyones brain, and they are effective. It dulls your palate to anything but that type food. The purpose is not to get people malnourished and sick, it&#39;s to make their food more appealing at the lowest cost possible, but that doesn&#39;t matter since the effect is to get people hooked on shitty food that basically poisons you and effects the way you think. [/b]
:lol:

Yeah, ok mate.

[bobroberts]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+December 26, 2007 08:27 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ December 26, 2007 08:27 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:20 pm

[email protected] 26, 2007 06:52 pm
Oh right. Here&#39;s me thinking that McDonald&#39;s is in the business of selling burgers and fries... Apparently they&#39;re also part of a mass drug-peddling conspiracy - lacing their burgers with super-addictive potions in order to draw in the helpless fast-food fiends - i.e. the masses.

Don&#39;t you realise just how ridiculous this sounds? It&#39;s exactly this kind of snooty, patronising middle class nonsense that we need to be resisting.


I don&#39;t care how it sounds, it&#39;s the truth. The chemicals are designed to trigger the naturally occurring opiates inside everyones brain, and they are effective. It dulls your palate to anything but that type food. The purpose is not to get people malnourished and sick, it&#39;s to make their food more appealing at the lowest cost possible, but that doesn&#39;t matter since the effect is to get people hooked on shitty food that basically poisons you and effects the way you think.
:lol:

Yeah, ok mate. [/b]
Amazing rebuttal. You&#39;ve convinced me.

[bobroberts]

Here&#39;s some more info on the addictiveness of junk food, for anyone who hasn&#39;t already made up their mind about the issue.


According to Hoebel, sugar triggers the production of the brain&#39;s natural opioids. "We think that is a key to the addiction process," he said. "The brain is getting addicted to its own opioids as it would to morphine or heroin. Drugs give a bigger effect, but it is essentially the same process."

"The implication," he added, "is that some animals, and some people, can become overly dependent on sweet food, particularly if they periodically stop eating and then binge. This may relate to eating disorders such as bulimia."

More studies in rats by Dr. Sarah Leibowitz, a neurobiologist at Rockefeller University, New York, showed that exposure to fatty foods might reconfigure the hormonal system to want more fat. Her studies have shown that rats fed on a high-fat diet become more resistant to leptin - the hormone that stops eating. At the same time, levels of galanin - a brain peptide that stimulates eating and slows down energy expenditure - increases. She thinks that early exposure to fatty food could predispose children to always needing fatty products.

http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/h...90703addic.html (http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/190703addic.html)
Here&#39;s another:
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/f...food_addiction/ (http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/food/junkfood_addiction/)

Kids naturally crave sweet foods, which in previous times meant fruit. Now it means low-quality ingredients injected with fat, sweeteners, and chemical perfumes to make the shit they are peddling taste palatable. Often times these are sweeter than the fruit that is available in the supermarket (which is also low-quality, unless you pay a premium for organic, and thus prices quality food out of the reach of the poor and working classes).

[Cheung Mo]

Drinking fairly large amounts can debilitate you for 6 - 18 hours and drinking immense amounts can kill you. (I shouldn&#39;t talk...My liver&#39;s taken a beating lately...I was sick this morning and still feel like shit.)

I&#39;ve aced tests and performed very well at work while under the exclusive influence of marijuana.

[Sky]

The illicit production of, demand, for and traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances constitutes a serious threat to the development and security of many countries, especially developing countries. The links between drug trafficking and organized crime, illegal acquisition of firearms, exchange control violations, customs offences, various forms of criminality and other serious problems of a socio-economic nature are undeniable. Any liberalization of legislation with regard to the illegal posession of narcotics will have a negative effect on international efforts to control the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs. Drug abuse and related trafficking problems present a serious threat to the health and social well-being of peoples, particularly youth, and endanger the security, resilience, and future of many countries. The State must take all practicable measures to develop community-based for drug abuse prevention as well as for the early identification, treatment, and rehabilitation of drug abusers.

Since drug use is associated with the euphoric, pleasantly numbing or stimulating effect of a narcotic, substances that do not produce euphoria are not abused and are not effective. The more pronounced the euphoric effect of a substance, the sooner habituation sets in. The decisive factor in the development of drug use is the failure to understand the danger in taking narcotics. Drug abuse may develop in young people as a result of “experimentation” or imprudent curiosity. The danger of susceptibility to drug use is greater among emotionally unstable persons who cannot control their impulses, who are mentally immature, or who reject general social standards. An improper upbringing, the bad example of an unhealthy peer group, the lack of intellectual and positive social attitudes, and inadequate education all contribute to the spread of drug abuse.

In all societies, including primitive ones, a moral prohibition was placed on the abuse of narcotics. As government became established, the struggle was initiated against illegal narcotic production, distribution, and traffic, because drug use harms not only the victim but society as a whole. The addict is excluded from productive activity because he has become physically and mentally disabled and his interests are concentrated only on how to secure the next dose. The steadily increasing psychological impairment and the social conflict, including the necessity of lying and illegally procuring the narcotic, result in both deep moral degradation of the personality and in criminal behavior.

[crimsonzephyr]

cannabis has so many pros that most of the people with much political in amerikkka don't want it. big company owners don't want cannabis to be legal because they will go out of business. it can be used for just about everything from paper to medicine.

[Xiao Banfa]

I think cannabis legislation should be liberalised under a workers republic, but hard drugs are completely different.

Smack and meth and all that shit cause severe harm to the community as a whole; exploding meth labs, meth-fiends going berserk, smackheads robbing shit.

I would have thought it would be fucking obvious not to give the green light to noxious synthetic drugs that destroy communities.

With that shit it's not the policy towards it that causes the harm it's the effects of the drugs themselves which are inextricably tied up with them.

Even with pot there needs to be some regulation, you can't have people growing it and selling it to 12 year olds.

And, face it, pot has adverse affects just like alcohol and fags (which both have heaps of regulation -not enough under capitalism in my opinion).